Ehh sorry I have to disagree. The problem is that law is (supposed to be) an application of logic, which requires very precise language. The average person doesn't have the logical ability necessary to read such things, regardless of how it's written, because there is no way way to write it such that it is both precise and easy to understand. Personally, I think written language is actually insufficient for law, and should probably be written in pure mathematical logic. Then you wouldn't have people arguing about what "well regulated" means and such.
Precisely. The average sane, level headed person intuitively knows the meaning of words as intended.
It's only insane, unhinged, agenda driven zealots who make mental gymnastics out of the perfectly understandable. Because their minds aren't grounded in reality, they have to twist reality to fit their warped misunderstanding of it.
Now, law should be written precisely so that manipulative hacks can't make pleas on technicalities, or just so that there aren't reasonable disagreements stemming from imprecise language.
But the law is undoubtedly written to be confusing. It's not the legalese per se, it's the sheer massive network of laws on the books, many of which are purposefully vague so as the leave them open to interpretation and specifically designed to contradict each other. All so lawyers can wage legal warfare upon law abiding citizens and let their pet crooks off scott free.
It's not the language that requires simplification. The books just need to be revised. i.e.: heavily truncated.
Sorry man, really disagree. "Logic" as understood by lay people is not what I'm talking about, and in fact, is usually not logical at all. It's the same with "common sense", there is no such thing, it's just something people made up to justify their opinion. Logic and mathematics are equivalent to each other, and you need to have a mathematically inclined brain to really grasp it. And I don't mean the ability to do algebra or compute, I mean the ability to write mathematical proofs and such. That ability is somewhat rare amongst the general population. Laws (should be) written and analyzed in the same way mathematical proofs are, which is why the language needs to be complex; simple language has too many holes that can be argued about.
Just want to chime in and say how much I despise the "common sense" argument/plea/packaging. It's a shaming mechanism designed to discourage asking "why?" Why? It's just common sense! Now shut up and do what we told you to.
As for your law/math comparison, they're coming after mathematics, as well.
Sorry man, but no, I can't agree with you. I have an example actually, the constitution. The constitution is written in somewhat plain language, which is why it has been so easy to poke holes in. For example, the second amendment. This is going to chap your ass, and most people that read this, but without the historical context, the second amendment does not outline a personal right to bear arms unambiguously. Now, reading it in that way is completely reasonable, even more so with the historical context, but the unfortunate truth is that laws need to "stand on their own legs", and generally do not have the luxury of being interpreted within a context. That's why the argument that is doesn't outline a personal right to bare arms holds legal weight. Both are valid arguments because the language is not unambiguous, despite what people like to think. This is why legalese is so important, it makes situations like that less probable.
Try this on. Estoppel. Just call it no take backs. Because that’s what it is. There is no reason to use the word estoppel to describe that. None whatsoever
Ehh sorry I have to disagree. The problem is that law is (supposed to be) an application of logic, which requires very precise language. The average person doesn't have the logical ability necessary to read such things, regardless of how it's written, because there is no way way to write it such that it is both precise and easy to understand. Personally, I think written language is actually insufficient for law, and should probably be written in pure mathematical logic. Then you wouldn't have people arguing about what "well regulated" means and such.
Disagree about "average person" and logic. It just ain't that damned hard. The problem is school became designed to make people not think.
Precisely. The average sane, level headed person intuitively knows the meaning of words as intended.
It's only insane, unhinged, agenda driven zealots who make mental gymnastics out of the perfectly understandable. Because their minds aren't grounded in reality, they have to twist reality to fit their warped misunderstanding of it.
Now, law should be written precisely so that manipulative hacks can't make pleas on technicalities, or just so that there aren't reasonable disagreements stemming from imprecise language.
But the law is undoubtedly written to be confusing. It's not the legalese per se, it's the sheer massive network of laws on the books, many of which are purposefully vague so as the leave them open to interpretation and specifically designed to contradict each other. All so lawyers can wage legal warfare upon law abiding citizens and let their pet crooks off scott free.
It's not the language that requires simplification. The books just need to be revised. i.e.: heavily truncated.
Sorry man, really disagree. "Logic" as understood by lay people is not what I'm talking about, and in fact, is usually not logical at all. It's the same with "common sense", there is no such thing, it's just something people made up to justify their opinion. Logic and mathematics are equivalent to each other, and you need to have a mathematically inclined brain to really grasp it. And I don't mean the ability to do algebra or compute, I mean the ability to write mathematical proofs and such. That ability is somewhat rare amongst the general population. Laws (should be) written and analyzed in the same way mathematical proofs are, which is why the language needs to be complex; simple language has too many holes that can be argued about.
Just want to chime in and say how much I despise the "common sense" argument/plea/packaging. It's a shaming mechanism designed to discourage asking "why?" Why? It's just common sense! Now shut up and do what we told you to.
As for your law/math comparison, they're coming after mathematics, as well.
Yeah, I know, thankfully it's been more resistant since the field is mostly spergs, but they can only last so long lol.
You are intelligent enough to know that we are both correct.
Sorry man, but no, I can't agree with you. I have an example actually, the constitution. The constitution is written in somewhat plain language, which is why it has been so easy to poke holes in. For example, the second amendment. This is going to chap your ass, and most people that read this, but without the historical context, the second amendment does not outline a personal right to bear arms unambiguously. Now, reading it in that way is completely reasonable, even more so with the historical context, but the unfortunate truth is that laws need to "stand on their own legs", and generally do not have the luxury of being interpreted within a context. That's why the argument that is doesn't outline a personal right to bare arms holds legal weight. Both are valid arguments because the language is not unambiguous, despite what people like to think. This is why legalese is so important, it makes situations like that less probable.
Try this on. Estoppel. Just call it no take backs. Because that’s what it is. There is no reason to use the word estoppel to describe that. None whatsoever